ILNews

  • Home

Opinions Jan. 10, 2013

January 10, 2013
Keywords
Opinions
Back to TopE-mailPrint

Indiana Supreme Court
Andre Gonzalez v. State of Indiana
45S03-1206-CR-307
Criminal. Reverses denial of petition to remove the lifetime registration requirement and remands for further proceedings. Finds the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Indiana Constitution prohibits retroactive application of a lifetime registration requirement for Gonzalez, whose requirement to register for life was added while he was completing the 10-year required registration as a sex offender that was in place at the time due to his child solicitation conviction. Justice Rucker concurs in result.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Marc Warren v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1206-PC-301
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Carl E. Bowman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
35A02-1205-CR-431
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine, Class D felony possession of methamphetamine, Class B felony conspiracy to commit dealing in methamphetamine and Class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia.

Miguel Castillo v. State of Indiana (NFP)
46A03-1204-CR-158
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for Class B felony criminal confinement, Class C felony battery, Class D felony strangulation and for being a habitual offender.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVANCED SEARCH
Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer

  1. Judge Roger B. Cosbey is unethical and bias toward African American who seeks justice in Title VII claims. He disrespected and used his authority to attempt to intimidate me into taking an unfair settlement and when I refused he proceeded to get my case dismissed and to deny me my Constitutional and Civil Rights. He disobeying several rules of law; specifically, by ruling on summary judgment motions against the Fed. R. Civ. P., without authority of Judge William C. Lee, without consent of the attorneys, and with conspiracy to commit “fraud on the court,” as he conspired with my former attorney. He proved to me that he is bias, unethical, unfair and unfit to be reappointed. In my opinion, he should be disbarred in 2013, for committing fraud on the court, which would make him ineligible for reinstatement in 2014. See docket 3:07 cv 629 where he rules on dispositive motions, knowing magistrates are not vested with that power (especially without consent), grants the defendant an unconscionable number of extensions, accepts my former attorney request for extension for dispositive motion knowing he was working with the opposition, and unbelievably grants the defendant another extension after he requested an extension after he missed the deadline. I know another attorney filed charges against him for bias in race discrimination case(s). I know what he did in my case before he voluntarily recused himself, I just do not know how many other innocent people have been stripped of their rights because of him. I say shame on him and no more of the same.

  2. they are pushing these cases against lawyers too far. thought-crime.

  3. vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!

  4. Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.

  5. With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.

ADVERTISEMENT